A scan showing several ground-glass nodules reads, to almost everyone who sees it, as widespread disease. It usually is not. Multiple ground-glass nodules typically represent one process affecting the lung as a whole, producing lesions that arise independently and grow very slowly — not one cancer that has travelled. It is managed across years rather than in a single operation, with the priority being to preserve enough working lung for whatever comes later. Dr Lawrence Okiror sees second opinions at London Bridge Hospital and The Lister Chelsea within 2–3 working days. Self-referrals welcome.
Last reviewed: August 2026 · Dr Lawrence Okiror FRCS(CTh) FRCSEd(CTh) · GMC 6150382
Several spots reads as an event that has already happened — something that has spread and now has to be caught up with. Multifocal ground-glass disease is not that. It is a process, not an event: a tendency of the whole lung to produce these lesions, slowly, over a very long time.
Treating a process as though it were a series of separate emergencies is the mistake to avoid, because the lung has to last. Request a second opinion within 2–3 days →
This is the single most important thing on this page, and it is worth being direct about why the wrong conclusion is so easy to reach. A scan report describing several nodules in both lungs looks, to any reasonable reader, like a scan of widespread cancer. Patients read it that way. Families read it that way. It is sometimes read that way at first by clinicians who do not see this pattern often.
What distinguishes it is behaviour. Cancer that has spread grows at a rate you can see between scans, and the deposits are copies of one parent tumour. Ground-glass lesions of this kind change over years rather than months, sometimes not at all across a decade, and when they are examined in the laboratory they often turn out to be genuinely different from one another. Copies of a single cancer would not differ.
The international framework used to classify lung cancer treats these as distinct situations for exactly this reason. Where lesions differ in type or in their detailed appearance under the microscope, they are regarded as having arisen separately rather than one having spread from another.1
The useful analogy is not a cancer that has spread but a lung that has become prone to producing these lesions. Whatever the underlying tendency is, it affects the organ as a whole rather than one spot within it. That is why new lesions can appear over the years in places that were previously clear, and why removing every visible nodule would not resolve the situation.
It also explains the apparent contradiction people notice: each individual lesion may be an early cancer and highly curable, while the overall picture is something to be managed rather than finished. Both statements are true, and they are true of different things — one about a nodule, the other about the lung.
This matters practically rather than academically. If the several nodules were counted as spread, the stage would be high, the treatment would be systemic, and surgery would not be offered. Staged correctly, the dominant lesion may be an early cancer entirely suitable for a small operation.
The distinction is well established in the classification system used internationally, which separates multifocal ground-glass disease from a cancer that has produced separate tumour nodules by spreading. They look similar on a scan and are treated in opposite ways.
A patient whose multifocal ground-glass disease is read as metastatic will be offered treatment aimed at control rather than cure, and will not be assessed for surgery at all.
It is the same category error in both directions: counting the lesions rather than examining what they are.
If you have one ground-glass nodule, the decision facing you is a single one, and it is set out in detail on the page dealing with that situation — what the appearance means, what decides whether it needs removing, and what surveillance involves. A single ground-glass nodule on a CT scan →
With several, that decision recurs. Each nodule may eventually pose the same question, at different times, over a very long period. The consequence is that no individual decision can be taken purely on its own terms. An operation that would be entirely reasonable for someone with one nodule may be the wrong operation for someone who will face the question again in eight years, because it has used up more lung than it needed to.
The reasoning is that risk in this disease is concentrated rather than distributed. A lesion that has begun to change is the one with the potential to behave like a conventional lung cancer. The lesions that have sat unchanged for years are, on the evidence of their own behaviour, not doing so.
This is also why the previous scans matter as much as the current one. A single image cannot show you which lesion is changing. A sequence can, and identifying the dominant lesion is often the main thing a specialist review contributes.
Where the lesion needing attention is small or deep within the lung and a sample is required before deciding, robotic navigational bronchoscopy can reach it through the airways with no cut in the chest wall. It is the most accurate method currently available for sampling nodules of this kind, and it is not yet widely available — the equipment is expensive and the training specific. Dr Okiror performs it himself and carries out any operation that follows. More on robotic navigational bronchoscopy →
People find this the hardest part to accept, and understandably. Being told that lesions which may be cancer are going to be left alone runs against every instinct about cancer treatment. It is worth understanding that this is not a compromise forced by circumstance. It is the correct treatment for lesions that are not changing.
The alternative — removing everything visible — would remove a great deal of working lung to treat lesions that in many cases would never have caused harm, and would leave nothing in reserve for a lesion that does start to change in fifteen years.
Operating on both sides at once is technically feasible but asks a great deal of someone in one admission, and it removes the opportunity to see how the first side recovers before committing to the second. Staging the treatment allows the second operation to be planned in the light of what actually happened after the first, including how the breathing tests look afterwards.
It also allows the plan to change. A rescan in the interval sometimes shows that the lesion on the second side has not altered, in which case the second operation may not be needed at all.
This is the practical reason keyhole and robotic approaches matter more here than almost anywhere else in lung surgery. Someone who may return to theatre in a decade is best served by an operation that leaves the chest as undisturbed as possible, because scarring from the first operation is what makes the second harder.
It is worth saying plainly that most people with this diagnosis do not undergo a long series of operations. Many have one procedure and then years of stable scans. A smaller number have treatment on two occasions well separated in time. The planning assumption exists to protect the people who need it, not because everyone will.
A lung is a set of segments, each with its own airway and blood supply. That anatomy allows a surgeon to remove the segment containing a lesion, with a proper margin around it and the lymph glands sampled, while leaving the rest working. Done properly, it is a full cancer operation performed to a smaller scale rather than a lesser version of one.
In someone with a single nodule, taking a lobe instead may make very little difference to how they live. In someone with multifocal disease, it can be the difference between having options in fifteen years and having none. More on robotic segmentectomy →
Every decision in multifocal disease is taken against a total that cannot be replaced. A lobe removed today is a lobe unavailable for the decision that arises in ten years.
That is why the smallest adequate operation is the right operation here, and why the restraint is as important as the surgery.
This is the point at which a surgeon has to be willing to say no to an operation, and it is worth being explicit that a proportion of people who come for an opinion about multifocal disease are advised to have nothing done. That advice is the substance of the consultation, not an absence of one.
What makes it safe is that the surveillance is real. Watching means a defined schedule, each lesion tracked individually, and the previous scans compared rather than only the latest one read. Watching without that structure is not surveillance; it is waiting.
Most people want a yes or a no here, and the honest answer is neither. What can be said is that this is not a disease that is typically going to shorten life in the way lung cancer usually does, that individual lesions can be dealt with effectively as they arise, and that the surveillance exists precisely so that each one is dealt with early.
It is closer to a long-term condition that is managed than to a single event with a definite end. That is a different thing to live with, and for most people a considerably better one than the phrase ‘cancer in both lungs’ first suggests.
The distinction is usually clear once the appearances and the history are considered together. Deposits that have spread from another organ tend to be solid, round, and growing at a rate visible between scans, in someone with a known cancer elsewhere. Ground-glass lesions are hazy rather than solid, change over years, and arise without any other primary cancer. More on cancer that has spread to the lungs →
Where several separate lung cancers are found together and are not of this ground-glass type, that is a third situation again, assessed differently. More on two lung cancers at the same time →
| Situation | Suggested action |
|---|---|
| Multiple ground-glass lesions reported as probable metastatic disease | Reassess — multifocal ground-glass disease is not staged as advanced disease and surgery may be appropriate |
| Several lesions, one enlarging or developing a solid component | Dominant-lesion assessment; prior imaging is essential to identify which is changing |
| Lobectomy proposed for a peripheral ground-glass lesion in multifocal disease | Consider lung-sparing alternatives — parenchyma preserved now determines options later |
| Bilateral lesions requiring treatment | Staged rather than simultaneous, with interval reimaging before the second side |
| Small or deep dominant lesion requiring tissue | Robotic navigational bronchoscopy reaches targets other methods sample unreliably |
| Stable lesions across serial imaging | Structured surveillance with individual lesion tracking — not intervention |
Referrals and self-referrals are seen at London Bridge Hospital and The Lister Chelsea, usually within 2–3 working days. Bringing all previous imaging matters more in this condition than in almost any other, because the diagnosis rests on behaviour over time. Clinic letters go to GPs electronically within two working days, and within three working hours where urgent.
If several ground-glass lesions have been described as cancer that has spread, that interpretation is worth reviewing before any treatment plan is settled. Most patients are seen within 2–3 working days.
Book a Consultation →Or call Jo Mitchelson:
020 7952 2882
Multifocal ground-glass disease is not staged as advanced disease, and it is managed across years rather than in a single operation. If it has been read as cancer that has spread, that is worth reviewing. Second opinions at London Bridge Hospital and The Lister Chelsea within 2–3 working days. Self-referrals welcome.
Jo Mitchelson, PA · 020 7952 2882 · pa@lungsurgeon.co.uk
St Thomas’ Hospital #1 UK · Guy’s Hospital #2 UK · London Bridge Hospital #10 UK · Newsweek World’s Best Hospitals 2026
What one nodule means, what decides whether it needs surgery, and what surveillance involves.
Robotic SegmentectomyThe lung-sparing operation that protects options for the decades ahead.
Cancer Spread to the LungsA different situation — deposits that have arrived from another organ.
Two Lung Cancers at the Same TimeTwo separate primary cancers found together, assessed differently again.
Robotic Navigational BronchoscopySampling a small or deep dominant lesion through the airways.
A New Lung Cancer Years LaterWhen a further cancer appears long after previous treatment.
What Is a Lung Nodule?The starting point — what a nodule is and how nodules are assessed.
Lung Cancer Second OpinionIndependent review of imaging, staging and treatment plan within 2–3 working days.